Opinion
November 15, 1989
Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to comply with CPL 270.10 and, therefore, his contention that he was denied his constitutional (US Const 6th, 14th Amends) right to a trial by a jury of his peers has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 40-43; People v Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 455, cert denied 433 U.S. 914). Moreover, defendant failed to specify facts upon which a statutory (Judiciary Law § 500), a due process or an equal protection violation could be premised (see, People v Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 410, cert denied 466 U.S. 951).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude that defendant's conviction of conspiracy in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 105.10) is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Schwimmer, 66 A.D.2d 91, affd 47 N.Y.2d 1004; see also, People v Bongarzone, 116 A.D.2d 164, affd 69 N.Y.2d 892).
Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the expert testimony of the forensic chemist (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, we conclude that the substantial expert testimony given by the forensic chemist provided legally sufficient evidence that the substance seized from defendant's home was cocaine (People v Tramell, 152 A.D.2d 989; People v Dore, 129 A.D.2d 992).